Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 82-2 (1982) · Confidentiality of Engineering Report
Professional obligations conflict, and the board applies no fixed rule for which one wins.
Each resolution is recorded as three edges:
competesWith (the tension),
prevailsOver (the obligation the board allowed to win in this case), and
defeasibleUnder (the situation under which the yielding obligation gives way).
The same tension is then traced across comparable cases, where its resolution shifts with context.
Hover any obligation or state to see its definition; click to open it in OntServe.
How this case resolved it
Featured
Engineer A Inspection Report Carbon Copy Real Estate Firm Confidentiality Breach
prevails over
Engineer A Benevolent Motive Non-Cure Confidentiality Breach
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Good-Faith Transparency Motive Confidentiality Violation
- Non-Self-Interested Confidentiality Violation — Engineer A Mitigating Context
Engineer A No Safety Exception Triggered Confidentiality Non-Override
prevails over
Engineer A Faithful Agent Duty Violated by Real Estate Firm Disclosure
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Client Bargaining Position Prejudiced by Report Disclosure
- Engineer A Good-Faith Transparency Motive Confidentiality Violation
Engineer A Faithful Agent Duty Violated by Real Estate Firm Disclosure
prevails over
Engineer A Openness Philosophy Non-Override Confidentiality Violation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Good-Faith Transparency Motive Confidentiality Violation
Engineer A Inspection Report Carbon Copy Real Estate Firm Confidentiality Breach
prevails over
Engineer A Benevolent Motive Non-Cure of Confidentiality Breach
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Good-Faith Transparency Motive Confidentiality Violation
- Non-Self-Interested Confidentiality Violation — Engineer A Mitigating Context
Engineer A Altruistic Disclosure Non-Justification Client Interest Neglect
prevails over
Engineer A Benevolent Motive Non-Cure Confidentiality Breach
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Good-Faith Transparency Motive Confidentiality Violation
- Non-Self-Interested Confidentiality Violation — Engineer A Mitigating Context
Engineer A No Safety Exception Triggered Confidentiality Primacy
prevails over
Engineer A Openness Philosophy Non-Override Confidentiality Violation
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Good-Faith Transparency Motive Confidentiality Violation
Engineer A Client Consent Prerequisite Third-Party Report Sharing
prevails over
Engineer A Benevolent Motive Non-Cure of Confidentiality Breach
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Good-Faith Transparency Motive Confidentiality Violation
- Non-Self-Interested Confidentiality Violation — Engineer A Mitigating Context
Engineer A Commissioned Report Adverse Party Non-Disclosure Violation
prevails over
Engineer A Openness Philosophy Non-Override Confidentiality Violation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Good-Faith Transparency Motive Confidentiality Violation
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Engineer A Section III.4 Confidentiality Client-Transmitted Engagement vs Engineer A Section III.4 Scope Misapplication Recognition
What the board concluded
- Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the home inspection to the real estate firm representing the owners.
How comparable cases resolved the same tension
A faithful-agent duty yields to a public-protection obligation. The yielding obligation ("Faithful Agent") recurs across cases; the obligation that overrides it and the context under which it yields differ case by case. This is the case-law move: not a single rule, but a family of context-indexed resolutions.
| Case | Obligation that prevailed | Yielding obligation | Context (defeasibleUnder) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
24-01
Balancing Client Directives and Public...
|
Engineer L Client Budget Pressure Refusal | Engineer L Faithful Agent Boundary | Engineer L Confirmed Risk Without Safeguards; Engineer L Resource Constrained Client |
| Engineer L Client Override Regulatory Report | Engineer L Faithful Agent Boundary | Engineer L Confirmed Risk Without Safeguards; Engineer L Resource Constrained Client | |
|
20-4
Public Health, Safety, and...
|
Engineer B Post-Override Regulatory Reporting | Engineer B Faithful Agent Boundary | MWC Override of Engineers A and B |
| Engineer A Post-Override Regulatory Reporting | Engineer A Faithful Agent Boundary | MWC Override of Engineers A and B | |
|
95-5
Failure To Include Information In...
|
Engineer B Expert Witness Neutrality | Engineer B Faithful Agent Boundary | Engineer B Adversarial Engagement; Engineer B Client Defense Bias |
| Engineer B Complete Technical Reporting | Engineer B Faithful Agent Boundary | Engineer B Adversarial Engagement; Engineer B Client Defense Bias | |
|
04-8
Public Welfare—Client Action Following...
|
Engineer A Safety Obligation Wetland Fill | Engineer A Faithful Agent Limits Wetland | Engineer A Confirmed Environmental Risk; Engineer A Faithful Agent Duty Conflict |
| Engineer A Wetland Confidentiality Limits | Engineer A Faithful Agent Limits Wetland | Engineer A Confirmed Environmental Risk; Engineer A Faithful Agent Duty Conflict |